[Taxacom] (no subject)

[Jason Mate]

Dear Robin,
It was a poorly worded sentence, sorry for the confusion. Obviously I did not want to invoque a form natural telelology. What I meant is that, by and large, nobody has claimed that current distributions are the result of pure randomness, although chance (as you have defined it) is continuously scrambling whatever pattern there may have been.
Best
Jason
> From: releech at telus.net
> To: jfmate at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] (no subject)
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:41:31 -0600
> 
> Aw Shucks, Jason, 
> All evolution is by chance and without direction. 
> If we have fossil records, we can know the direction evolution has come to
> the present, but 
> we would, for the most part, be guessing what chances will occur, and what
> directions the evolution will go in
> the future. 
> I say "for the most part", because in cases where we observe an apterous or
> brachypterous insect, we can pretty 
> well state that flight is not in its descendants package of activities.
> Robin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jason Mate
> Sent: October-21-11 2:51 PM
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: [Taxacom] (no subject)
> 
> 
> Dear Michael, some of the comments need clarification."Accepting a literal
> reading of the fossil record implies that biogeography is caused by random
> trans-oceanic dispersal and that any repeated patterns are
> meaningless.""...but you don't accept biogeographic evidence as it is all
> caused by chance."Current biogeography is built upon two mechanisms,
> vicariance and dispersal. From your writings I assume (maybe I?m wrong) that
> you only truly accept a form of vicariance.  In addition, repeating patterns
> may or may not indicate vicariance.Repeated dispersal along particular
> routes can result in patterns. 
> "So why are more and more authors putting distribution maps in their
> abstracts at Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution? Are all these simple,
> clear-cut distributions really just due to chance?" 
> Why bring-up MPE specifically? It is a pretty bizarre comment. Maps are a
> handy way to convey information, they are not a prelude to track-drawing, so
> it is no wonder people use them more."If they are not, this suggests that a
> literal reading of the fossil record might be misleading."I would add that
> the notion that the fossil record is completely unreliable, thus essentially
> eliminating lower limits is misleading as well. Taxa can be and are
> evaluated not just on their direct fossil evidence but on that of higher or
> related clades. So, even if the evidence for a group is lacking there is
> often outgroup fossil evidence that can be brought to bear on the problem.
> Best
> Jason 		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms here
>